free-range politics, organic community

Is Kamala still feeling immodest?

Tulsi Gabbard has gotten over 2% in TWENTY-SIX polls, but the DNC only counts two of them. (The Economist and the Boston Globe are not certified.)
So it appears that the DNC is about to kneecap Tulsi's presidential campaign.

However, Tulsi made a bigger impact than any other candidate that won't be in the next debates. Just ask Kamala.

How the mighty have fallen.

Sen. Kamala Harris last month dismissed Rep. Tulsi Gabbard’s criticisms of her record as a corrupt law enforcement official, pointing smugly to the disparity between her and Gabbard's 2020 Democratic primary polling numbers.

However, a survey released this week by CNN shows Harris’ support among potential Democratic voters has plummeted from 17% in June to a measly 5%. In contrast, Gabbard has seen her admittedly poor numbers improve slightly, clocking in at 2% in August, up from 1% in June.

SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next debate.

COOPER: for a lot of them it's do or die.

HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did expect that I might take hits tonight. But, you know, listen, this coming from someone who has been an apologist for an individual, Assad, who has murdered the people of his, you know, of his country like cockroaches. She who has embraced and been an apologist in a way to refuse to call him a war criminal. I can only take what she says and her opinion so seriously. So, you know, I'm prepared to move on.

You aren't a top-tiered candidate anymore, so can you finally address the points Tulsi made? Your donors are starting to get worried.

“When you’ve locked up more black Americans than George Wallace, it’s hard for you to be the greatest civil rights advocate in American history,” Castellanos quipped...
A recent Pew survey found Harris attracting just 10 percent of the black vote nationwide.
...
At the same time, this contributor, who asked for anonymity to avoid offending Harris, said, “When you talk with the donor establishment, there’s not confidence her campaign is getting it together.”

“People like her — genuinely like her — and respect her,” the donor said, but “her campaign seems plagued by indecision. (Donors are) worried about her viability … She can put this together, but she had a tough month.”

Harris is done, and we can thank Tulsi for that.
Unfortunately, Tulsi won't be there to take out Mayor Pete and/or Beto.

to make the equivalence, but hasn't the calculus also been different ahead of different debates?

but yeppers: it's one of the Catch 22's of our pretend democracy:

sergeant: 'from now on i don’t want anyone to come in to see me while i’m in my office.’
sergeant: ‘may i send people in to see you after you’ve left?’
major major: ‘yes.’
sergeant: but you won’t be here then?
major major: ‘no’. (now ya got it...)

#3
It’s not who voters say counts in polls, it’s who decides which polls count.

@wendy davis
use a sample of as little as 400 persons. And the DNC has determined that 400 people should have a greater say in who gets on the debate stage than over 160,000 unique donors?

The purpose of the debates is should be to allow the public to learn more about each of the candidates. How can the public learn more about a candidate whose campaign has basically been shut down by polls that are mostly meaningless nearly one year out before the convention?

The last debate the DNC allowed five candidates who did not meet the unique donor threshold to be on the stage, but shut out Mike Gravel who exceeded the unique donor threshold. The current unique donor threshold for debates 3 and 4 is 130,000. The last I saw, Tulsi had over 160,000 unique donors.

And 160,000 is greater than 400, so shouldn't 160,000 carry more weight than 400? What we are watching is the incremental rigging of the Democratic primaries.

'Tulsi Gabbard has gotten over 2% in TWENTY-SIX polls, but the DNC only counts two of them.' fake democracy. too bad no mo' league of women voters...

up

0 users have voted.

—

"I don't want to run the empire, I want to bring it down!" ~ Dr. Cornel West

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

even their (donors, polling numbers) Big Rule is suspended for certain candidates?

another Catch-22: 'We make the rules, we can break them when we feel like it, and you can stuff it.' but of course, they're fake debates, as well. ha; and not just proven by donna brazile having leaked the Qs to her faves ahead of one of the joint press conferences.

#3 use a sample of as little as 400 persons. And the DNC has determined that 400 people should have a greater say in who gets on the debate stage than over 160,000 unique donors?

The purpose of the debates is should be to allow the public to learn more about each of the candidates. How can the public learn more about a candidate whose campaign has basically been shut down by polls that are mostly meaningless nearly one year out before the convention?

The last debate the DNC allowed five candidates who did not meet the unique donor threshold to be on the stage, but shut out Mike Gravel who exceeded the unique donor threshold. The current unique donor threshold for debates 3 and 4 is 130,000. The last I saw, Tulsi had over 160,000 unique donors.

And 160,000 is greater than 400, so shouldn't 160,000 carry more weight than 400? What we are watching is the incremental rigging of the Democratic primaries.

They're using the metaphor and structure of football playoffs--or a "ladder" in boxing or wrestling.

#3 use a sample of as little as 400 persons. And the DNC has determined that 400 people should have a greater say in who gets on the debate stage than over 160,000 unique donors?

The purpose of the debates is should be to allow the public to learn more about each of the candidates. How can the public learn more about a candidate whose campaign has basically been shut down by polls that are mostly meaningless nearly one year out before the convention?

The last debate the DNC allowed five candidates who did not meet the unique donor threshold to be on the stage, but shut out Mike Gravel who exceeded the unique donor threshold. The current unique donor threshold for debates 3 and 4 is 130,000. The last I saw, Tulsi had over 160,000 unique donors.

And 160,000 is greater than 400, so shouldn't 160,000 carry more weight than 400? What we are watching is the incremental rigging of the Democratic primaries.

up

0 users have voted.

—

Actually, the issue at stake is patriotism. You must return to your world and put an end to the Commies. All it takes are a few good men.
--Q